Er, Ringo the environmental defender of the year? He lead the charge to bring a bad M37 fix to the floor, and had to be slapped back into committee. Is he a good listener and does he get the issues? Not really. He also perpetuated lots of M37 myths, and people listen to him. Sigh.

While we were disappointed with Senator Ringo's push for a bad fix to Measure 37, this one point of disagreement needs to be put in context of the whole session. Overall, there is little doubt that he played more of a role than any other legislator in killing off a myriad of bad House bills that came over to the Senate.

So what's the problem with Portland's Democratic Senators Brown, Carter, and Gordly? Are they afraid their constituents wouldn't stand for pro-environmental votes? Were they trading votes with Republicans? Are they positioning themselves for post-public service corporate positions?

The deleted comments concerned some legislators from my home base, Clackamas County.

Sigh. There's disagreement, and there's leading the charge over the vociferous objection of all of Oregon's environmental groups. Who then turn around and give you a f..king award.

People who screw (or try to screw) the environment so prominently must be punished, not awarded.

Yes, he was great on a killing a lot of issues -- big deal, he had a 18-12 majority. What did he lead on? Bashing our land use laws. So, fine, give him a good score. But don't give him environmental defender of the year. It's an insult.

My problem with the OLCV scorecard, and all scorecards for that matter whether from the left or right, is that they ignore the nuances of the process. A group like OLCV decides itself what it considers the important environmental bills of the session then rates lawmakers as either "good" or "bad." But sometimes the most important vote you can get is the one that is out-of-character. But if lawmakers perceive that they will be judged only by the totality of their votes, why should they give you that one out-of-character vote? "If I'm gonna be a 'F' anyway, why should I help?"

I applaud OLCV for its subjective evalluations near the end of the report where they take the space to acknowledge the help of Sen. Westlund and the "good" votes of Rep. Bruun. Yet overall they give Westlund a 42% and Bruun only a 25%. This is exactly my point. Numerical rankings have little merit.

I'd take the one courageous vote that bucks the leadership any day against the knee-jerk lawmaker concerned about his or her 100% ranking.

Westlund looks pretty good for a Republican at 42%, as most R's are far lower. Bruun is 25% better than 0% like Krummel. Of course scorecards are imperfect, but using only "subjective" evaluations would tempt an avalanche of protestation, making the process of evaluating environmental friendliness worth little. I think the OLCV does a decent job of selecting the votes it rates.

To Republicans in Congress and in state capitals across the country: It's time to refuse the NRA's support and their money. And donations received in the past should be donated to organizations supporting the survivors of gun violence.